Telangana High Court
WP/27396/2005 of M. Rambabu, Vs The A.P. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY DATED: 26-12-2005 WRIT PETITION No.27396 OF 2005 BETWEEN: M..Rambabu . . .Petitioner And The A.P.Industrial Development Corpn Ltd., Hyd, and another . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27396 OF 2005 O R D E R:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
DATED: 26-12-2005
WRIT PETITION No.27396 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
M..Rambabu . . .Petitioner
And
The A.P.Industrial Development Corpn Ltd., Hyd, and another . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.27396 OF 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
The first respondent issued a tender notice, dated 05-08-2005, inviting tendersfor various items of property, which, it proposed to sell. One of the items wasthe property belonging to M/s.Sudha Sewing Threads Limited, Samalkot, EastGodavari District. The upset price was Rs.76,50,000/-. The petitioner andseveral others submitted their tenders as per the schedule and they wereopened on 18-08-2005. It emerged that the amount quoted by the petitionernamely Rs.1,01,00,000/- was the highest. According to the petitioner, therespondents have discussed the matter and agreed to accept his tender.
The second respondent addressed a letter, dated 05-12-2005, to the petitionerenclosing a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- towards refund of the EMD paid by thepetitioner. It was stated that they have decided to reject the offer of thepetitioner, since it was low. The same is challenged in this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel forthe respondents.
It is true that the respondents have stipulated the upset price as Rs.76,50,000/-and that the offer of the petitioner is for Rs.1,01,00,000/-. The mere fact that theoffer in a tender is more than the upset price itself does not result inconferment of enforceable right upon the tenderer concerned. The connotationof the upset price is limited to the extent that any tender, which quotes less than the upset price, does not receive any consideration at all. So far as theacceptance of a tender is concerned, it is always up to the tendering agency tosatisfy itself as to the adequacy and sufficiency of the price. They are notunder obligation to state any reasons for this purpose. The petitioner couldhave a genuine grievance, if any tender, for a lesser amount than the onequoted by him is accepted or if the respondents have undertaken anynegotiations with others, without inviting the petitioner to the same. Neither ofthe said eventualities have taken place in the case. Therefore, this Court doesnot find any basis to interfere with the same.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
26[th] DECEMBER, 2005.
________________________
(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)
kvni